Sri Pydi Venkata Ramana, Visakhapatnam V. The ITO, Visakhapatnam

ITA 26/VIZ/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6622 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R GOVINDARAJAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Rectification of order; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Competent authority; Assessment record; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 153A; 148; 132; 12; 144; 11; 139; 15

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / I . T .A.NO. 2 7 /VIZ/ 201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 2 - 1 3 ) SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU D.NO.39 - 16 - 36/1, MURALINAGAR MADHAVADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM [ PAN : A KYPP6502A ] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 4(2) VISAKHAPATNAM ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.2 6 /VIZ/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012 - 13 ) SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA D.NO.39 - 16 - 36/1, MURALINAGAR MADHAVADHARA VISAKHAPATNAM [ PAN : A DF P 9971D ] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 4(2) VISAKHAPATNAM ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI I. KAM A SASTRY, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.GOVINDARAJAN, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 . 10 .2017 2 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. TH E S E APPEAL S ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM VIDE ITA NO.142/2015 - 16/CIT(A) - 2/W - 4(2)/VSP/2016 - 17 DATED 04.11.2016 AND ITA NO.14 1 /2015 - 16/CIT(A) - 2/W - 4(2)/VSP/2016 - 17 DATED 04.11. 2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE EXCEPT GROUND NO.4 IN I.T.A.NO.26/VIZ/2017 WHICH IS ADJUDICATED SEPARATELY . F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE FACTS ARE EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.27/VIZ/2017 . I.T.A.NO.27/VIZ/2017 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 30.03.2015 IS BARRED BY LIMI TATION AS THE SAME IS NOT PUT INTO TRANSMISSION FOR BEING SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TIME BARRING DATE I.E., OR BEFORE 31.03.2015. 2. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD, AO IS AB IN I T I O VOID AS THE LD. AO HAS NOT REFERRED THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY TO THE DVO AS MANDATED UNDER SECTION 5OC(2). 3 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE LD. AO IS NOT CORRECT IN ADOPTING THE SRO VALUE AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5OC AND THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE SAME AS THE LAND IS SUBJEC T TO UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF LEASE OF ABOUT 50 YEARS AS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED. 4. THE LD. AO WHO ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND THE LD. AO WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ARE DIFFERENT AND HENCE THE ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 143(3) BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS NULL AND VOID. 5. THE LD.AO IS NOT CORRECT IN ADOPTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 1,80,000 AND RS.9,03,360 AND INDEXING THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HEREBY PLEADS FOR ADOPTING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 01.04.1981 IN TERMS OF SECTION 55 BY ADOPTING THE REVERSE INDEXATION METHOD. THIS IS A PLEA BEING MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, AMEND, OR ALTER ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 11.06.2012 ADMITTING THE TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS FOR RS.9,70,680/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AND S UBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER THE CASS AND THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ALONG WITH TWO OTHERS NAMELY SMT. PYDI VARAHALAMMA AND SHRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN UNDER : 4 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM SL.NO. SALE DEED NO. & YEAR DATE OF REGISTRATION BEFORE SRO DWARAKANAGAR VALUE AS PER SALE DEED EXECUTED RS. SRO, DWARAKANAGAR REGISTERED VALUE RS. 1. 1826/2011 07.07.2011 30,00,000 48,00,000 2. 1789/2011 28.06.2011 1,25,00,000 6,90,34,000 3. 1788/2011 28.06.2011 2,50,00,000 12,68,08,000 4. 1827/2011 07.07.2011 10,00,000 22,14,000 4,15,00,000 20,28,64,000 3 . 1. THE ASSESSEE I S 1/3 RD SHARE HOLDER OF ABOVE PROPERTIES. SINCE THERE WA S A DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AND THE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE SALE DEEDS EXECUTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO IN VOKE THE PROVISIONS OF 5OC OF I.T.ACT AND A DOPT THE MARKET VALUE AT RS.20,28,64,000/ - AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,15,00,000/ - AS PER THE SALE DEED . ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE PROPOSING TO COMPUTE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.6,74,80,333/ - TOWARDS HIS SHARE AS UNDER : TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SRO VALUE ON APPLICATIN OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T.ACT, WAS RS. 20,28,64,000 / - AND THE ASSESSEES SHARE IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: 5 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM OUT OF THIS 1/3 RD SHARE IS R.S.6,76,21,333/ - LESS : COST OF ACQUISITION (AFTER APPLYING INFLATION INDEX) RS.14,13,000/ - LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS. 6,74,80,333 3 . 2. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SRI P.VENKATA RAMANA , ONE OF THE COSIGNATORIES OF THE SALE DEED AND THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND AGREED FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.6,47,86,542/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPE AL BEFORE THE CIT (A) BUT NONE APPEARED. LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFICATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS UNDER : I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND DETAILS FILED. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION IN GROUND NO.1 IS THAT AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF ANY EXTRA CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN THE DOCUMENTED CONSIDERATI ON, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C CANNOT BE INVOKED. SUCH A PLEA IS UNTENABLE AS THE LEGISLATIV E PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 50 C REQUIRES THE AO TO ASSESS THE CAPITAL GAINS BY ADOPTING THE SRO VALUE AS THE DEEMED FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION AS TO THE ENCUMBRANCE OR LITIGAT ION IN THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY, AND HAD ALSO AGREED TO THE ADDITION BEFORE THE AO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO'S ACTION IN ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING SRO VALUE AS THE FULL VALUE OF C ONSIDERATION INVOKING SECTION 50 C IS JUSTIFIED. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID TAXES IN LIEU OF THE CLAIM MADE U/S.54F. THE AO IS DIRECT E D TO VERIFY AND GIVE CREDIT FOR THE TAXES PAID. 6 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR PRESSING THE GROUND N O.3 RELATED TO ADOPTION OF VALUE AS PER SECTION 50C OF IT ACT SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND FILED PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RELATING TO THE DISPUTES OF THE PROPERTY SUCH AS THE COURT ORDER S , SURPLUS LAND DECLARED UNDER THE URBAN LAND CEILING ACT AND THE EVIDENCE FOR FILING WRIT PETITION BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN WPSR 115303/2012 DATED 13.07.2012 AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH CHALLENGING THE ORDER S OF URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHORITIES DECLARING THE IMPUGNED LAND AS SURPLUS LAND. THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE SUBJECT LAND WAS GIVEN ON LEASE FOR 99 YEARS BY A REGISTERED DOCUMENT N O.1138/1964 ON 22.04.1964 IN FAVOUR O F ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRONIC CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD. (APEEC LTD.) AND THE UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF L EASE WAS 50 YEARS AS ON THE DATE OF SALE.. THE LEASE AMOUNT WAS RS.3,000/ - PER ANNUM AND AT THE TIME OF SALE, THERE WA S UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF ABOUT 50 ODD YEARS REMAINED AS PER THE LEASE AGREEMENT . FURTHER OUT OF THE TOTAL EXTENT OF 15,056 SQ.YDS , THE ASSESSEE HA D SOLD THE LAND OF 14,520 SQ.YDS TO THE LESSEE AND HIS AGENTS/NOMINEE S . THE ASSESSEE FILED EVICTION PETITION AGAINST THE LESSEE BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM ON 7 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM 11.04.2007 IN O.S. NO.516/2005 AND GOT DECREE IN THEIR FAVOUR . AGAINST THE DECREE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, THE LESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE IN SEPTEMBER 2007 IN A.S.NO.145/2007 AND HO NBLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE LESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER COURT. THE LESS OR FILED THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP IN SA NO.1212/2017 AND REACHED COMPROMISE OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT AS EVIDE NCED BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP DATED 04.07.2011. FURTHER LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED LAND IS IN DISPUTE UNDER THE URBAN LAND CEILING ACT . T HE SPECIAL OFFICER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF URBAN LAND CEILING (ULC) , HYDERABAD PASS ED AN O RDER DECLARING 12,656.22 SQ.MET R E S OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.59/3 AT MARRIPALEM(SUBJECT LAND) AS SURPLUS LAND BY AN ORDER DATED 20.03.2007 . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION BEFORE THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE STATING THAT THERE WAS NO SURPLUS LAND IN THEIR HANDS IN SURVEY NO.59/3 OF MARRIPALEM . IN RESPONSE TO THE REP RESENTATION OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 28 . 09 . 2007 THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF URBAN LAND CEILING, VISAKHAPATNAM HAS MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO SPECIAL OFFICER, ULC, HYDERABAD FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE STATING THAT THE DETERMINATION OF 12,656 SQ.METRES UNDER C CATEGORY IN URBAN CATEGORY , 8 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM AFTER PROVIDING PROTECTION U/S 4(11) OF THE ACT I S NOT AVAILABLE. THUS, THERE WAS NO SURPLUS LAND , UNDER URBAN LAND CEILING ACT, ACCORDINGLY, THE SPECIAL OFFICER OF URBAN LAND CEILING, VISAKHAPATNAM HAS REQUESTED THE SPL.OFFICER, ULC, HYDERABAD TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE. HOWEV ER, LD.AR STATED THAT TILL DATE, NO RECTIFICATION ORDER WAS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSE SEE. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED WRIT PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER 8(4) OF URBAN CEILING ACT IN WPSR NO.42152/2008 DATED 15.04.2008 BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE CASE IS PENDING AS ON DATE. WHILE THE THINGS STAND AT T HIS JUNCTURE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTIES TO THE LESSEE AND HIS NOMINEES ADMEASURING 14,500 SQ.YDS OF SITE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,15,00,000/ - WHICH WAS LESS THAN THE MARKET VALUE. SINCE THE TITLE OF THE LAND IS IN DISPUTE WITH THE ULC THE V ENDEES M/S BHIRAGACHA FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD, KOLKATA AND M/S ECE INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI. HAVE ALSO JOINED THE ASSESSEE AND FILED WRIT PETITIONS BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP IN WPSR NO.115303/2012 DATED 13.07.2012 AND WPSR NO.66335/2012 DATED 24 .04. 2012. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT AS ON THE DATE, THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE STILL PENDING. THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT WHEN THE LAND IS SUBJECT TO LITIGATION, AND THE LEASE PERIOD DID NOT EXPIRE AND UNEXPIRED LEASE PERIOD STANDING AT 50 YEARS AND THE TITLE OF TH E LAND IS IN DISPUTE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO 9 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM GET THE FAIR PRICE TO ANY LANDLORD AND THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN COMPELLED TO SELL THE LAND FOR WH AT EVER THE PRICE IT MAY FETCH . THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER APPROACH ALSO FOR THE LAND . THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO MAKE THE PAYMENT OF HUGE DEMAND RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ADOPTING 50C FOR CAPITAL GAINS. THE LD.AR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D AGREED FOR THE ADDITION AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT TO PURCHASE PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, BUT NOT AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES AND REPERCUSSIONS OF ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAINS BY ADOPTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF I.T.ACT. THE LD.AO DID NOT EXPLAIN THE RESULTANT TAX AND THE CONSEQU ENCES TO THE ASSESSEE. THEY ONLY CAME TO KNOW THE ON RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE TAX DEMANDED WAS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY EACH CO - OWNER OF THE LAND. THEY HAVE AGREED BY SHEER IGNORANCE. THE FACTS OF LITIGATION AND DISPUTES WERE RECORDED IN THE SALE DEEDS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DISPUTES. LD.AR PLEADED THAT DUE TO THE COMPLICATE D ISSUES OF PENDING LITIGATION BEFORE THE HONBL E HIGH COURT , THE URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHORITIES, UNEXPIRED PERIOD OF LEASE AS WELL AS THE DISPUTE IN TITLE DUE TO NON RECEIPT OF FINAL ORDERS FROM SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITIES , ULC FOR THE PROPOSAL OF RECTIFICATION MADE BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT A UTHORITY OF 10 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM/HYDERABAD , THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET THE FAIR PRICE AND RECEIVED ONLY THE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED. THE ABOVE ISSUES WERE NOT BROUGHT BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE ABOVE FACTUAL ASPECTS WHILE DETERMI NING THE CAPITAL GAINS ADOPTING THE VALUE AS PER 50C OF I.T.ACT. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO DID NOT EXPLAIN THE CONSEQUENCES OF 50C VALUE AND THE RESULTANT TAX LIABILITY. THE TAX DEMANDED BY THE DEPARTMENT WA S MORE THAN SALE C ONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS BEYOND THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSEE. T HEREFORE, LD.AR ARGUED THAT TO THE SUBJECT LAND, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CANNOT BE INVOKED . THE LD.AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT W HILE CONSIDERING THE MARKET VA LUE ALL THE ABOVE FACTS RELATING TO THE PENDING DISPUTES REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AND ADOPTING THE VALUE OF 50C WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS IS INCORRECT . HENCE, LD.AR REQUESTED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT IF NECESSARY , AFTER CONSULTING THE DVO. THE LD A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMITTED IT WOULD CAUSE GROSS INJUSTICE AND FINANCIAL INJURY TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BEYOND THE REPAIR . 11 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BRING THE PENDING DISPUTES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE . RATHER, THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE S REPRESENTATIVE HA VE AGREED FOR THE PROPOSED ASSESS MENT FOR WHICH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED. EVEN THOUGH OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT (A) , NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A) AND DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITIES. THEREFORE, LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ARGUED T HAT APPEAL BE DECIDED ON MERITS AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD WITHOUT ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,15,00,000/ - AGAINST THE VALUATION AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES AT RS.20,28,64,000/ - WHI CH IS FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN THE THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION . THE ASSESSEE IS 1/3 RD SHARE HOLDER IN THE PROPERTY , HENCE RECEIVED 1/3 RD SHARE OF RS.4 , 15 , 00 , 000/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS OF ASSESSEES SHARE AT RS. 6,47,86,542/ - AND DETERMINED THE TAX DEMAND AT RS.1,78,32,460/ - , AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,38,33,000/ - RECEIVED AS PER THE SALE DEED. THE SUBJECT LAND WAS UNDER LITIGATION WITH URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHO RITIES WHO 12 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM PASSED AN ORDER U/S 8(4 ) OF URBAN LAND CEILING ACT DECLARING THE IMPUGNED LAND AS SURPLUS LAND. THOUGH RECTIFICATION PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED BY THE URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHORITIES, VI SAKHAPATNAM FOR PASSING NECESSARY ORDERS RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE THE SAME WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY. AS ON THE DATE OF SALE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CLEAR TITLE ,HENCE THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF AP IN WP SR 42152/2008 ON 15.04.2008 FOR CARRYING THE RECTIFICATION FROM APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES I.E URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHORITIES. WHILE THE CASE IS PENDING, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTIES TO THE LESSEE AND ITS NOMINEES BY SALE DEED DATED JUNE/JULY 2011 AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE TABLE FURNISHED IN THIS ORDER. THE VENDEES ALSO JOINED WITH THE ASSESSEE IN WRIT PETITION AGAINST THE URBAN LAND CEILING AUTHO RITIES, GOVT. OF AP. PENDING LITIGATION, NON SETTLEMENT OF THE TITLE OF THE LAND , W OULD HAVE SUB STANTIAL IMPACT ON THE VALUES OF THE LAND. AS ON THE DATE OF SALE OF THE LAND, IT WAS DECLARED AS THE SURPLUS LAND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE TITLE. THOUGH COMPETENT AUTHORITY PROPOSED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO THE SURPLUS LAND UNDER URBAN LAND CEILING ACT, THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT YET PASSED THE NECESSARY ORDERS AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO GO TO HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR JUSTICE. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE 13 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM ASSESSEE HAS DIRECT IMPACT ON THE VALUATION OF THE LAND FOR ADOPTION OF 50C FOR CAPITAL GAIN . THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE TRIBU NAL HONBLE 3 RD MEMBER IN THE CASE OF ABHAY KUMAR SHROFF VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (1997) [63 ITD 0144] HELD AS UNDER : 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE IN THE SHAPE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED BY THIS TRIBUNAL SUO MOTU AS THEY HAVE A CLOSE RELATION AND NEXUS WITH THE RACES OR THE CASE AND I THINK THEY ARE VERY VITA L AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE DECIDING THE SECOND APPEAL FAIRLY AND JUSTLY. VARIOUS COURTS HAVE OPINED THAT IF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS NEXUS WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONTROVERSY CANNOT BE DECIDED WITHOUT APPRECIATING AND EVALUATING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THEN THE SAME CAN BE ADMITTED IN ORDER TO DISPENSE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE PARTIES BEFORE IT. 9. IT WOULD THUS, BE NOTICED THAT WHERE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ENABLES THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS ORDERS OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE IT COULD REQUIRED THE PARTIES TO DO SO. THERE IS NO GAINSAYING THAT WHILE THIS POWER COULD BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL SUO MOTU THE JURISDICTION VESTED IN THE TRIBUNAL COULD BE GOT INVOKED AT THE INSTANCE OF ONE OF THE PARTIES BEFORE IT 11. WHILE PP.2 TO 5 ARE COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE HUF LANDLORD DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, COPIES 6 AND 7 CONSTITUTE A LETTER OF ALMOST THE SAME PERIOD WHICH EMANATED FROM THE ASSTT . GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, B OMBAY - 2, CONTAINING TERMS OF LEASE AND THE ADVANCE OF LOAN OF R S.11.40 L ACS. 12. IF WE GO THROUGH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE TWO APPEALS WHICH ARE SIMILAR, THE FIRST GROUND CHALLENGES THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEES IN A SUM OF RS. 1,16,250 EACH TO THE BANK WHICH THEY CLAIMED WAS FOR BUSINES S PURPOSES WHILE HELD TO BE OTHERWISE BY THE DPRTMENT. SIMILARLY, THE OTHER SUBSTANTIAL DISPUTE IN THESE APPEALS IS IN RESPECT OF THE TREATMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN A SUM OF R. 7.75,000 GIVEN BY THE BANK OF THE HUF, THE TRANSACTION CLAIMED IN CONS IDERATION OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY TO ENABLE THE BANK TO GET THE PREMISES IN QUESTION AT A MUCH LOWER RENT THAN THE MARKET RENT. THE PLEA FURTHER TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEES IS THAT THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THEM OUT OF THE RENTING OF THE PREMISES WAS QUITE H IGH EVEN AFTER DEDUCTING THE INTEREST PAD TO BE BANK AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO NEGATE THEIR CLAIM. ON THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE COULD IT BE SAID THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION BRIEFLY REFERRED TO 14 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM HER EIN BEFORE ARE NOT NECESSARY FROM THE TRIBUNAL'S VIEW POINT WHICH UNDER S. 254 OF THE IT ACTS CALLED UPON THE DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS BEFORE IT BY PASSING SUCH ORDERS THEREON 'AS IT THINKS FIT'. PATENTLY, THOSE DOCUMENTS WOULD ENABLE THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS OR DERS EFFECTIVELY AND THEIR ABSENCE MAY NOT UNFOLD THE ACTUAL CONTROVERSY AND LEAD TO A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, NO DOUBT THAT NOT A WHISPER HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THERE WAS LAPSE ON THEIR PART IN NOT BRINGING THIS VITAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, YET THIS FAILING OR RETICENCE ON THEIR PART OR EVEN IGNORANCE OR WHATEVER ONE MAY TERM IT CANNOT BE SAID TO PRODUCE ANY DEVASTATING EFFECT OF THE MAGNITUDE WHERE THE POWERS VESTED BY R. 29 REFERRED TO SUPRA IN THE TRIBUNAL COULD STAND SET AT NAUGHT. THE GRAVAMEN OF THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE NON - PRODUCTION OR THESE VITAL DOCUMENTS EITHER BEFORE THE A C OR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT EFFECT IN LAW TO MY MIND, IT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE AS A MATTER O F RIGHT CANNOT FILE OR FILING THEM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS A MATTER OF COURSE. IF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES SOME DOCUMENTS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME THEY HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION SUBJECT OF COURSE TO ALL JUST EXCEPTIONS, SUCH AS THEIR RELEVANCE, ETC. I F NOT DONE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS HAS TO BE GOVERNED BY R. 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 IF PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HAVING MISSED THE BUS AND THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE ADMIS SION OF DOCUMENTS IS TO BE GOVERNED BY R. 29 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 DISCUSSED HEREIN BEFORE BRIEFLY. WHAT I WANT TO EMPHASISE IS THAT, IF THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED EVEN AT THE SECOND APPELLATE STAGE ARE OF A NATURE AND QUALITATIVELY SUCH THA T THEY RENDER ASSISTANCE TO THE TRIBUNAL IN PASSING ORDERS OR REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED FOR ANY 'OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE', IT WOULD RATHER BE THE DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ADMIT THEM. LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER HAS RIGHTLY MADE REFERENCE TO THE TRIBUNAL'S DECI S IO N IN RAJMOTI INDUSTRIES' CASE (SUPRA) WHEREIN ON AN ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS DECISIONS, IT WAS HELD THAT IS THE RECEIPT OR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS VITAL AND E S SENTIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBJECT - MATTER OF APPEAL AND ARRIVE AT A FINAL AND ULT I MATE DECISION, THE TRIBUNAL WAS AMPLY EMPOWERED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER R. 29 REFERRED TO SUPRA, 1 3. IN THIS CONNECTION, REFERENCE MAY BE MADE MUCH MORE AUTHORITATIVELY TO A DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF K. VENKATARAMIAH VS. A. SEETHARAMA REDDY AIR 1963 SC 1526, WHEREIN THEIR LORDSH I PS OF SUPREME COURT HAD OCCASION TO INTERPRET AND OUTLINE THE OBJECT OF R. 27 OR THE ORDER 41 OF THE CPC, 1908. INTERESTINGLY, THE LANGUAGE OF OR DER 41 R. 27 CPC AND R. 29 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES IS ALMOST THE SAME INASMUCH AS WITH A LITTLE DIFFERENT WORDING R. 27 OF ORDER 41 OF THE CPC ALSO SAYS THAT PARTIES TO AN APPEAL SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ADDIT I ONAL EVIDENCE WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTAR Y, IN THE APPELLATE COURT. BUT, IF, I NTER ALIA, AS PROVIDED BY CL (I,) OF CI. (1) OF R. 27 OF ORDER 41 CPC THE 'APPELLATE COURT REQUIRES ANY DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED OR ANY WITNESS TO BE EXAMINED TO ENABLE IT TO 'PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT' AND FOR ANY 'OTHER SUBST ANTIAL CAUSE', 15 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM THE APPELLATE COURT MAY ALLOW SUCH EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED. IN K. VENKATARAMAH'S CASE (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD AS UNDER - 'UNDER R. 27(1), THE APPELLATE COURT HAS THE POWER TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOT ONLY IF IT REQUIRES SUCH EVIDENCE 'TO ENABLE IT TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT', BUT ALSO FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE'. THERE MAY WELL BE CASES WHE R E EVEN THOUGH THE COURT FINDS THAT IT IS ABLE TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT ON THE STAGE OF RECORD AS IT IS, AND SO IT CANNOT ST RICTLY SAY THAT IT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO ENABLE IT TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT, IT STILL REQUIRES ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO ENABLE IT TO PRONOUNCEMENT JUDGMENT, IT STILL CONSIDERS THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SOMETH I NG WHICH REMAINS OBSCURE SHOULD BE F ILED UP SO THAT IT CAN PRONOUNCE ITS JUDGMENT IN A MORE SATISFACTORY MANNER. SUCH A CASE WILL BE ONE FOR ALLOWING ADDITIONAL' EVIDENCE FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE UNDER R. 27(1)(B) OF THE CODE. SUCH REQUIREMENT OF THE COURT IS NOT LIKELY TO ARISE ORDI NARILY UNLESS SOME INHERENT LACUNA OR DEFECT BECOMES APPARENT ON AN EXAM I NATION OF THE EVIDENCE. IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE DEFECT MAY BE POINTED BY A PARTY, OR THAT A PARTY MAY MOVE THE COURT TO SUPPLY THE DEFECT, BUT THE REQUIREMENT OF THE COURT UPON ITS AP PRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE AS IT STANDS. HELD ON FACTS THAT THE HIGH COURT ALLOWED ADD I T I ONAL TO BE ADMITTED AS IT REQUIRED SUCH EVIDENCE EITHER TO ENABLE IT TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF R. 27(1)(B) OF 0.4 1 OF THE CODE.' 14. AS IS EVIDENT, THE SUMMIT COURT HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT OF LAYING DOWN LAW AS PER WHICH IN A CASE EVEN WHERE STR I CTLY SPEAKING A COURT DID NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO UNABLE IT TO PRONOUNCE JUDGMENT, IF IT CONS I DERS THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SOMETHING WHICH REMAINS OBSCURE SHOULD BE FILLED UP SO THAT IT COULD PRONOUNCE ITS JUDGMENT IN A MORE SATISFACTORY MANNER, IT SHOULD BE DONE AS IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF ALLOW I NG ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CA USE AS FOUND IN R. 27(1)(B) ORDER 41 OF THE CODE. FURTHER, SUCH A DEFECT MAY BE POINTED OUT BY A PART BUT AS HELD BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL IN A DECIS I ON IN PSARSOTIM THAKUR VS. LAI MAHAR THAKUR AIR 1931 PC 143, THE REQUIREMENT MUST BE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CO URT UPON ITS APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AS IT STANDS. 15. THE POWERS THAT ARE VESTED IN THE TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, ARE IDENTICAL TO THE POWER VESTED IN AN APPELLATE COURT UNDER THE CPC. THE TWO PROVISIONS AS HAS BEEN NOTICED ARE NOT 16 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM ONLY SIMILAR BUT IDENTICAL AND THAT BE SO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE INTERPRETING THE RELEVANT CPC PROVISIONS APPLIES IN LAW WITH EQUAL FORCE TO THE TRIBUNAL WHILE EXERCISING POWERS UNDER S.29 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 16. I AM, THEREFORE, INCLINED TO AGREE MORE WITH THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ANSWER QUESTION NO.1 ACCORDINGLY. 6.1. FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE 3 RD MEMBER, THE POWER S ARE VESTED IN TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CRUCIAL TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.A.R . FROM COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS OF ASS ESSEES SHARE WAS RS.6,47,86,542/ - AND THE TAX DEMANDED WAS AT RS.1,78,32,460/ - AGAINST ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,38,33,000/ - AS PER THE SALE DEED . I T APPEAR TO US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED BY SHEER IGNORANCE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE TAX IMPLICATIONS AND WE ARE ALSO UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE AO HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE TAX IMPLICATION TO THE ASSESSEE PROPERLY. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOV E CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE ABOVE IMPEDIMENTS IN SALE OF THE PROPERTY WHILE ADOPTING THE 50C VALUE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD.A.R IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT CONSIDERED IT WOULD CAUSE NO T ONLY FINANCIAL INJURY TO THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO INJUSTICE AND IT HAD DIRECT IMPACT ON THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY . THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ADMIT 17 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HAVING ADMITTED ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE, IT IS JUSTIFIED ON OUR P ART TO REMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO . IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY TAKE THE HELP OF DVO AND DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE AFRESH ON MERITS. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . 7. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND N O.1 RELATING TO TH E ASSESSMENT BARRED BY LIMITATION WHICH IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD.AR. THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 7.1. GROUND NO.4 IS RELATED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD.AR, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7.2. GROUND NO. 6 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 7.3. GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE RELAT ED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE SALE VALUE UNDER 50C OF I.T.ACT AND REFERENCE TO THE DVO. SINCE WE HAVE REMITTED THE 18 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM ENTIRE ASSESSMENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. IN THIS CASE THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA 26/VIZ/2017 PYDI VENKATA RAMANA 8. GROUND NOS. 2,3 AND 5 ARE RELATED TO THE APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.27/VIZAG/2017, HENCE THESE GROUNDS ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT DENOVO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. GROUND NO.4 IS RELATED TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE JURISDICTION OF THE SALARIED EMPLOYEES V ESTS WITH THE RANGE - 2, HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD.AR ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN RANGE 4 IS ERRONEOUS AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITO - 4(2) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. LD.AR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH IN 116 TTJ 0076(2008) IN THE CASE OF ZIAULLA SHERIFF VS. 19 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) AND T HE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT [372 ITR 83]. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 06.08.2013 AND SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES AND COOPERATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN FACT ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT AS PROPOSED BY THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES . AS PER SECTION 124, SUBSECTION 3 OF I.T.ACT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO RAISE OBJECTIONS WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE REGARDING THE INCORREC T ASSUMPTION OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY . IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION AND ACCEPTED THE SAME . FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE HEREUNDER SECTION 124, SUBSECTION 3 OF I.T.ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER : JURISDICTI ON OF ASSESSING OFFICERS. 124. ( 3) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER ( A ) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115WD OR UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 , AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WE OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; 20 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM ( B ) WHERE H E HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WD OR SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115WH OR UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 115WF OR UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; ( C ) WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN UNDER SECTION 132 OR SECTION 132A , AFTER TH E EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OR SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153C OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. 10.1. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 06.L08.2013 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION FOR JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ASSUMED THE JURISDICTION AND THERE IS NO ERROR. FURTHER, LD.AR RELIED ON TH E ORDERS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, BA NGALORE AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA. T HE HONBLE COURTS HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE S ECTION 124, SUB SECTION 3 OF I.T.ACT. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. HENCE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 11 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 21 ITA NO S . 27/VIZ/2017 AND 26/VIZ/2017 SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU AND SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA, VISAKHAPATNAM THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH OCT 20 17 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 06 . 10 .2017 L. RAMA, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / THE APPELLANT S (I) SRI PYDI GIRIDHAR BABU, D.NO.39 - 16 - 36/1, MURALINAGAR, MADHAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM (II) SRI PYDI VENKATA RAMANA , D.NO.39 - 16 - 36/1, MURALINAGAR , MADHAVADHARA , VISAKHAPATNAM 2 . / THE RESPONDENT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 4(2) , VISAKHAPATNAM 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM